BRIAN BASHARA, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 2017-06-14
No. Case No. 2D16-5455
LaROSE, CRENSHAW, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
219 So. 3d 1013 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2017)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the postconviction court erred by not allowing the defendant an opportunity to amend his facially insufficient motion for jail credit.


Facts & Procedural History

Brian Bashara filed a motion for jail credit asserting a deficiency of 200 days, but failed to include the detailed factual allegations required by th…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Brian Bashara challenges the order denying his motion for jail credit filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801. We reverse the postconviction court’s order and remand for the court to strike Bashara’s motion and grant him sixty days to file a sufficiently pleaded amended motion. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.801(e) (incorporating, in pertinent part, rule 3.850(f)(2)).

In his motion for jail credit, Bashara simply asserted that the court file conclusively demonstrated that his award of jail credit was deficient by 200 days; he did not include the detailed facts and allegations required by rule 3.801(c)(l)-(5). Rather than striking the facially insuffi*1014cient motion and allowing Bashara to amend it as required by rule 3.801(e), the postconviction court entered a detailed order with record attachments finding that Bashara was not entitled to any more jail credit than he was awarded.

On appeal, Bashara filed an initial brief making detailed allegations concerning his claim of jail credit deficiency that the attachments to the postconviction court’s order do not refute. Because the postconviction court did not provide Bashara with an opportunity to amend his facially insufficient motion, we reverse and remand with directions for the court to allow Bashara sixty days to amend his motion to comply with rule 3.801(c).

Reversed and remanded with directions.

LaROSE, CRENSHAW, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw